New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Green/Eco friendly hosts..
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
>
I'm a student, university.
I'm not in the mood to have a climate and not economic debate on LET, this the last short post on this subject.
Yes taxes make people want to avoid them, it's somewhat good. But...
A goverment that is many billions into debt doesn't give a single f*ck about the environment, on one side they drop bombs, and then come talking that companies should reduce CO2 emissions, and tax them. And guess what, that tax money doesn't go to development of better solar panels or anything alike.
First of all, many governments (at least in the EU) have many subsidies for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy investment. As mentioned above, there are subsidies for insulation and solar installation, so tax money IS going toward funding these things. The EU grants cover upto 80% of these things.
Secondly, the tax that influences behavior also influences investment. An increase in taxes for using 1 technology increased investment in another technology that avoids that tax. It's pretty simple. Even if governments didn't put anything back into investing into sustainable tech, the private sector still would, so the result would ultimately be the same. Government subsidies only help accelerate the development and adoption of certain technologies.
What country are you from that has 0 spending on sustainable tech? Pretty much every developed country has, or has had some system in place to encourage this.
Not economics I assume.
@randvegeta are you a hippie?
For me, the bottom line is, do my customers care whether I host their sites in "green" data centers? tldr: They don't.
No.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think global warming matters. I take Mars as an example which is supposed to have had Earth-like environment before drying up. If humans lived on Mars, the result would have been the same. Mars would have dried up regardless.
Sadly, people don't normally care. Even if people do care, business is business, and economics normally trumps environment. So given the choice, people often choose the best price, all other things being equal. But if the price is the same, then I think generally there is a preference for 'green'.
But going 'green' makes sense in most cases. Energy costs are some of DC's biggest expenses, so reducing overall power consumption (/maximising efficiency) helps with the bottom line.
Lower power consumption = reduced operating costs.
If a DC has their own solar array they can put on the roof, even if they don't produce enough power for all their needs, it will still help reduce operating costs. So much so that the typical ROI is under 7 years, even without subsidies.
Global warming is a way for breeders to feel like they're not the problem. Overpopulation is the problem, plain and simple. You can try to blame cars and hairspray as much as you like, but the problem is too many people. Gore stumbled upon a hell of a way to let people feel smug while driving their less-than-three-year-old Prius with the 5th sprog in her belly and the other 4 in the back seat, when they're the problem.
Over population is only part of the problem. The US has a population of about 300M while producing around 15% of global emissions. China and India, with the largest populations, have populations of 1.4 and 1.3B and produce 30% and 7% of global emissions respectively.
So per person, US citizens emit over 2x more than Chinese and 8.5x more than Indians.
Now here is where you will say that this is because of differences in economic development, and if/when China/India reaches the US level of development, their emissions will be comparable. So compare the US with other wealthy countries.
The average citizen of the us produces:
2.3x more than the EU average
1.7x more than the average German
2.6x more than the UK average
3.2x more than the average Frenchman
So it is not simply a matter of population. It's a matter of efficiency and waste. The world could support a much larger population with some relatively minor changes.
Saying that we need to curb the population growth is just a lazy excuse to keep polluting and shifting the blame to someone else.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to buy into your ideology that the US is doing worse than a country which literally burns electronics to melt down and recover precious metals.
Much like you're doing with these unfounded numbers and accusations?
Hetzner claims to use renewable energy. Germany in general has a high percentage of renewable electricity in its mix. Storage is an issue as everyone says.
Amazon is building a new data center in Seattle and is going to pipe out the surplus heat to use in its office buildings or something like that. Don't know how that works out in the summer.
What a waste.. they could just use what comes from elJefe's mouth and forgo the datacenter entirely.
No. Not in the slightest.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2015
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2015
I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling.
I'm not sure if you realize just how large a population China has and actually how relatively poor the majority are.
China emits more CO2 per person than the EU. This is no small feat considering the GDP per capita is less than 1/4.
The vast majority of Chinese probably emit very tiny amounts of CO2. Those with no regard for the environment are likely responsible for the relatively high per capita output.
So, you are basically saying we need World War 3.
Amusingly that actually may help with the environment in the mid term if nuclear warheads were not in the equation.
Natural disasters kind of do the same. Some time ago there was a volcanic eruption in Iceland (I think it was 2010?). The event lead to many millions of tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere, which of course is bad for global warming.
On the other hand, all the planes that were grounded actually meant there was less CO2 emitted during the period because none of the planes in the region were burning fuel.
It's actually rather interesting.
But seriously no... no one should be advocating world wars in the name of the environment!
As long as we don't drop too many a bombs and enough people die it would definitely be a great way to go for the environment.
Well said.